Anybody make any sense of this jabberwocky?
Posted on 01/22/2005 6:14:11 PM PST by Destro
Bush strays far from Republican tradition
Friday, January 21, 2005
It wasn't a particularly lyrical speech that George W. Bush delivered yesterday at his second inauguration. It wasn't even a very Republican speech, for that matter. But it went a long way toward illuminating how far Bush has taken the Grand Old Party from its traditional conservative roots.
It was the most interventionist foreign policy speech heard in Washington in decades -- since John Kennedy's 1961 promise to "bear any burden" in defense of liberty around the globe. Bush's speech mechanics may indeed have been inspired in part by the success of the Kennedy speech and its focus on foreign policy in an equally dangerous time.
Domestic policy, as a result, got short shrift yesterday from Bush; presumably it will be dealt with in detail in next month's State of the Union message. So heavily tilted was the speech toward tyranny in the world that it seemed better aimed at a United Nations audience than an American inaugural celebration.
And therein lies a remarkable change for Republicanism. The GOP historically has been the party of restraint abroad, the heir to George Washington's admonition to avoid foreign entanglements. President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, had to overcome Republican resistance to American involvement in the First World War, and Franklin Roosevelt, another Democrat, encountered similar Republican hostility and suspicion as he tried to prepare the country for its inevitable involvement in World War II.
More recently, Republicans took Bill Clinton, another Democrat, to the woodshed for his involvement in ending ethnic cleansing by Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo and in nation-building in Somalia. Bush himself, lest we forget, won election in 2000 with a campaign that condemned Clinton's overseas adventure and promised to steer clear of "nation-building."
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
the newark star - ledger:
"bush is really a liberal"
major case of penis envy on the part of the RATS
They are starting a campaign to divide us so that Bush gets nothing done. As if its non-traditional for Republicans to love liberty.
Hello? New Jersey? Was anyone at the Star Ledger awake on September 11th, 2001?
This is a well constructed piece. With famous historical quotes bringing us through history. What this jack ass forgets to mention is 9/11. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't that change conventional wisdom on foreign policy forever?
The author makes some good points.
Since Reagan, the GOP no longer fits the 'country-club Republican' stereotype. It's not a 'Bush' thing. He's just been handed the baton. The author has it wrong.
The speech didn't mention the UN, Old Europe, nation building or any of that liberal puffery. It was set squarely within the tradition of upholding American NATIONAL INTERESTS. At the same time, it reaches back to the founding ideals of America and also, the Republican Party itself. Its very much in our party's tradition of looking out for America's destiny.
Post the whole damn article.
What Republican president was an isolationist? I'm tired of hearing that Bush is bucking the republican tradition on foreign affairs. Reagan was as engaged abroad as any President we've ever had. What Republicans are they talking about?
It's from one of them 'excerpt and link' sites
It wasn't even a very Republican speech, for that matter.
Since when did a foreign policy that promotes freedom and democracy abroad become un-Republican?
From his comments, John misunderstood the content of President Bush's speech. He's not the first.
I still don't like the policy and am not convinced it's legally required, but I do understand the economics of it.
Yea, I kind of noticed the 9-11 omission as well. From what I remember, it seemed as if President Bush was planning on a foreign policy that was pretty much status quo prior to 9-11. So much for Plan A.
I was completely supportive of President Bush's strategy of attacking nations which sponsor and support terrorists, if other means to persuade them fail. I'm completely supportive of President Bush's change in foreign policy, as laid out in his speech.
The fact that there was no mention of 9/11 and the legitimate resultant change in US foreign policy makes me question if this is an intellectually honest article.
Any worries about "global hostility" which I presume he means Europe,while we begin to cure the wound of radical islam that started festering 25+ years ago is of no concern to me.
Countries that consider a weaker US as being in their best interest should not be much bothered with.
We were attacked,we are fighting back and I am glad we have a President who has the vision to realize that a stable democratic middle east is not only a benefit to us but to the rest of the world including the whiners from "old Europe".
Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, or so it's said. Also the Middlewestern Republicans of the Taft-Bricker stripe in the 1930s and 1940s.
Reagan came after thirty years of Cold War. In the early years of the Cold War, Republicans were still quite skeptical of foreign involvements. And even during the Reagan era, things looked differently at the beginning than at the end. In 1979 Americans were frightened of losing everything to the Soviets. So we had to get tough. After 1989 some thought we could do anything and take on any great foreign task.
So basically, they are comparing President Bush to Republicans before WW2??? Do you feel that is a fair basis to say that he is straying from traditional republican policies?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.